207
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 12 Jul 2024
207 points (97.7% liked)
movies
1629 readers
301 users here now
Warning: If the community is empty, make sure you have "English" selected in your languages in your account settings.
A community focused on discussions on movies. Besides usual movie news, the following threads are welcome
- Discussion threads to discuss about a specific movie or show
- Weekly threads: what have you been watching lately?
- Trailers
- Posters
- Retrospectives
- Should I watch?
Related communities:
Show communities:
Discussion communities:
RULES
Spoilers are strictly forbidden in post titles.
Posts soliciting spoilers (endings, plot elements, twists, etc.) should contain [spoilers] in their title. Comments in these posts do not need to be hidden in spoiler MarkDown if they pertain to the title’s subject matter.
Otherwise, spoilers but must be contained in MarkDown.
2024 discussion threads
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Once it came out that there were live rounds found in other places that were never mentioned until now... yeah that's not a good look. And while I understand the argument that he's the producer therefore responsible for anything that happens on set they'd be setting a standard that wasn't applied in an awful lot of past on set accidents.
Which has nothing to do with this decision. This what about due process by the police, nothing to do with actual fault.
As producer he should still hold the final culpability of anyone and anything on site. It would be like letting the owner of a company walk on a technicality, he’s still responsible in the end.
Sorry I thought I was making it clear that the dismissal was due to the negligence of the police, but even if it had gone to trial it was still an uphill battle to claim his responsibility as producer. If the armorer could be proven to have been a bad hire it could have fallen on him, maybe, but if the production could prove that they took reasonable steps to see if she was qualified but were sadly mistaken that would make it hard to prove negligence.
Personally I would rather it had gone to trial and given the full chance under the law to prove innocence or guilt, dismissal with prejudice is not the same thing as a finding of not guilty even if the result is the same.
It’s interesting seeing the law differences, in Canada this would be considered criminal and anyone up to the owner can be held accountable. I think it’s only been used and upheld a few times though.
Westray bill c45
Edit, looks like it’s been used more since I checked last.